Section 23(4) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.21

Section 23(4) falls under section 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 21 (Determination of annual value) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 21 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 23(4) is Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT (323 ITR 104), cited in 44 of the 92 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 23(4)

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT
323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court
44
citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

CIT v. Sane & Doshi Enterprises
377 ITR 165 · 2015 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Rental income from unsold property held by a real-estate developer is assessable under the head 'Income from House Property' and not as 'Business Income'. The treatment in books of account as stock-in-trade does not alter the income's character for tax purposes.

CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd.
164 Taxmann 342 · 2007 · High Court
30
citing judgments

When a builder's business involves constructing and selling property, unsold units are considered stock-in-trade and income derived from them is taxable under the head 'Business Income', not 'Income from House Property'.

Kumar Properties and Real Estate (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
128 Taxmann.com 364 · 2021 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

No disallowance can be made under section 14A if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. D.N. Dosani
280 ITR 275 · 2006 · High Court
13
citing judgments

When an assessment is reopened under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's power to make a fresh assessment is confined only to the specific issues directed by the Commissioner for revision. The Assessing Officer cannot consider other items not part of the revisional direction.

Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Himani M Vakil
10 Taxmann.com 326 · 2013 · High Court
9
citing judgments
Rajesh Keshav Pillai v. ITO
44 SOT 617 · 2011 · ITAT
6
citing judgments
Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT, Pune
147 Taxmann.com 333 · 2023 · ITAT
5
citing judgments
Tivoli Investment& Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
90 ITD 163 · ITAT
4
citing judgments
PCIT v. Royal Western India Turf\nClub Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 13 · 2019 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 23(4)

Jewel Housing, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 892/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)

Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)

Shri Saileshbhai Shambhubhai Hirpara, Jetpur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 59/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 59/Rjt/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Shri Saileshbhai The Deputy बनाम/ Shambhubhai Hirpara Commissioner Of Income Vs. C/O. Nishan Export, Tax Dhoraji Road, Jetpur, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Rajkot - 360370 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeph3006R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, ""यथ" क" ओर से / Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 23/08/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Rajkot (In Short ‘Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2018 Passed By The Dc/Ac, Circle-1(2), Rajkot Under Section

For Appellant: None
Section 1Section 10(24)Section 144Section 14A

Pride Purple Properties, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 783/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shanker Prasad
Section 23(4)

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit"E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 906/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w
Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit'E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 905/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w
Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Capacit'E Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 904/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sareen a/w
Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

Anil Premchand Motiramani, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3017/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Pratap N. Sharma
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 54F

Jayant Avinash Dave, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 126/PUN/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 23(4)

Pride Purple Properties, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Pune

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 481/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

Sapphire Land Development P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 5(4) Room No. 5, 3Rd Floor Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor Capri, Anant Kanekar Marg Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aaacs7785H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : None Department Represented By : Shri Ashish Kumar Deharia

Section 14ASection 23(4)

Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner O Income Tax, Cir.1(2), Surat

ITA 356/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.356/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha Ajaykumar Agrawal Assistant Commissioner Of 229-230, Ashoka Tower, Ring Income-Tax, Circle-1(2), Aayakar Vs. Road,Surat-395002 Bhavan, N. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaspa 2993 A (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh C Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kuamr, Sr-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 23(2)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 56(2)(vii)

Sarita Sunil Mantri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 2969/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sarita Sunil Mantri, Ito-7(2)(1), Flat 3 & 4, Kamal Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 69 Walkeshwar Road, Opp. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Gopi Birla School, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Adxpm 8070 E Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Aditya Rai, Dr : Date Of Hearing 17/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, AR
Section 23(4)Section 24Section 74(1)

Rakeshkumar Wadhawan, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3025/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Rakesh Kumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle 5(4) Wadhawan, Room No. 1927, 19Th Thar & Co., 203, Capri Floor, Air India Building, Building, Opp. Hdil Nariman Point, Towers, Anant Kanekar Mumbai – 400 021 Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 234D

Umesh Dhondiram Shinde, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1351/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 23(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 40

Rakesh Kapoor, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT- 12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3249/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 263

Pegasus Properties P. Ltd., Pune vs. Dy CIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

Girish B. Chaudhari, L/H. of Bhagwat N Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1132/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 23(4)

Shri. Kishor Tarachand Patil, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1461/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1461/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Kishor Tarachand Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Flat No.102, Shree Anant Villa Appt., Nashik Near Deepak Laundry, Samartha Nagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Ahrpp7621C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik’S Order Dated 15.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 570 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Appellant Filed Condonation Petition. In The Condonation Petition, The Appellant Submitted That The Appellant Had Suffered Due To Slow Down In Business Which Resulted In Huge Outstanding Of Creditors. Due To Financial Pressure, Health Of The Appellant Also Suffered. The Appellant Was Under Complete Bed Rest For More Than 5 Months Around March, 2016. The Appellant Filed Copy Of Medical Certificate. The Appellant Also Submitted That He Was Kidnapped By The Creditors. Subsequently, There Was A Criminal Case Filed Against The Appellant. The Appellant Also Filed Fir Against The Kidnappers. The Appellant Also Filed Copy Of The Fir. The Appellant Was Under Police Custody, When The Bail Petition Was Rejected By The Hon’Ble

M/S. Nirman Homes, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80